DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is responsive to amended application filed on 07/22/2026.
Claims 1-9 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argued:
PNG
media_image1.png
433
683
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner consulted the specification whether the disclosed invention improves technology and to ensure the claim itself reflects the improvement in technology. After carefully examined the claimed solution to problem recited in applicant argument, the claims do not reflect to cover a particular solution to a problem. The claims merely use mathematical concepts and/or mental process. Any purported improvement to a technology or technical field as direct consequence of the “mental processes and/or mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself” (MPEP 2106.05(I)).
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to claims 1 and 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 35 USC 103(a) has been withdrawn.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on 04/27/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/22/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (Does this claim fall within at least one statutory category?):
Claims 1-8 are directed to a method.
Claim 9 is directed to a product.
Therefore, claims 1-9 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1: ((a) identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites an abstract idea: and (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groups of abstract ideas enumerates in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)):
Claim 1:
A method for automatically arranging parts on a CAD for automatically arranging a plurality of types of parts in an arrangement area on a CAD tool (well-understood, routine and conventional activity (MPEP 2144.04 (III) – automation of a known process or manual activity), two directions perpendicular to each other in the arrangement area being an X-direction and a Y- direction, and the plurality of types of parts being each a rectangle having a side parallel to the X-direction or the Y-direction, the method comprising:
a part condition acquisition step for acquiring a part boundary condition, which is set for each of the types of the parts, representing the type of the part to be permitted to be arranged adjacent to the part [mathematical concepts and/or “mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)];
a part arrangement order acquisition step for acquiring an arrangement order, which is set for each of the types of the parts, of the part in the arrangement area [mathematical concepts and/or “mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)];
a boundary line acquisition step for arranging a boundary line parallel to an area termination end line as a line representing a termination end of the arrangement area in the X-direction or the Y-direction and acquiring a boundary line boundary condition representing the parts arranged in two regions separated by the boundary line [mathematical concepts and/or “mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)];
a part arrangement step for comparing the part boundary condition set for the part and the boundary line boundary condition set for the boundary line arranged in the arrangement area and arranging the part when the conditions match each other [mathematical concepts and/or “mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)];
a boundary line updating step for updating the boundary line and the boundary line boundary condition after arranging the part in the part arrangement step [mathematical concepts and/or “mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)];
a first repetition step for repeatedly performing the part arrangement step and the boundary line updating step [mathematical concepts and/or “mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)];
a part type change step for changing, when the part boundary condition and the boundary line cannot match each other, the type of the part to be arranged to the part to be arranged next in order [mathematical concepts and/or “mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)]; and
a second repetition step for repeatedly performing the part arrangement step, the boundary line updating step, the first repetition step, and the part type change step according to the arrangement order [mathematical concepts and/or “mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
Step 2A, Prong 2 (1. Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and 2. Evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application): The claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites additional element of “CAD tool”. This additional element recited at a high level of generality (e.g. a generic computer element for performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, claims recite the term “automatically” implies that a generic function that may be utilize to perform the arrangement of the parts.
Step 2B: (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No): As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of “CAD tool” is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Further, the additional term of “automatically arranging” may considered to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity (MPEP 2144.04 (III) – automation of a known process or manual activity).
[Claim 2] The method for automatically arranging parts on a CAD according to claim 1, further comprising a provisional arrangement step for updating the boundary line assuming [ “mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)] that the part has been arranged before performing the method for automatically arranging parts on a CAD (well-understood, routine and conventional activity (MPEP 2144.04 (III) – automation of a known process or manual activity) according to claim 1, wherein the provisional arrangement step includes a step of performing provisional arrangement by updating the boundary line assuming that the part has been arranged [ “mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)] according to the method for automatically arranging parts on a CAD (well-understood, routine and conventional activity (MPEP 2144.04 (III) – automation of a known process or manual activity) according to claim 1, and a step of calculating dimensions of a gap region where the provisional arrangement has not been performed from the boundary line after the provisional arrangement and adjusting dimensions of the part such that the gap region is eliminated [mathematical concepts].
[Claim 3] The method for automatically arranging parts on a CAD (well-understood, routine and conventional activity (MPEP 2144.04 (III) – automation of a known process or manual activity)according to claim 1, wherein the part boundary condition includes a first boundary condition representing the type of the part to be permitted to be arranged adjacent to each of sides of the part, a second boundary condition representing the type of the part to be permitted to be arranged diagonally adjacent to each of corners of the part, and a rotation condition representing a rotational angle to be permitted when the part is arranged, and the boundary line boundary condition includes a third boundary condition representing presence or absence and the type of the parts arranged in two regions separated by the boundary line or indicating that the two regions are outside of an arrangement area of the part [mathematical concepts and/or “mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
[Claim 4] The method for automatically arranging parts on a CAD (well-understood, routine and conventional activity (MPEP 2144.04 (III) – automation of a known process or manual activity) according to claim 3, further comprising in the part arrangement step, comparing the first boundary condition and the second boundary condition for the part with the third boundary condition for the boundary line, and arranging, when the first boundary condition for two sides of the part and the third boundary condition for the two boundary lines match each other, the part to contact the two boundary lines that match each other or arranging, when the second boundary condition for the part and the third boundary condition for the two boundary lines match each other, the part to contact a vertex formed by the two boundary lines that match the corner of the part, and in the boundary line updating step, deleting the boundary line that overlaps the side of the arranged part and setting, on the side of the part that does not overlap the boundary line, the new boundary line and the third boundary condition [mathematical concepts and/or “mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
[Claim 5] The method for automatically arranging parts on a CAD (well-understood, routine and conventional activity (MPEP 2144.04 (III) – automation of a known process or manual activity) according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of blocks each having the parts arranged therein according to the method for automatically arranging parts on a CAD according to claim 1 are arranged in at least one of an X-direction and a Y-direction, or the plurality of blocks are arranged to overlap one another in a direction perpendicular to the X-direction and the Y-direction [mathematical concepts and/or “mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
[Claim 6] The method for automatically arranging parts on a CAD (well-understood, routine and conventional activity (MPEP 2144.04 (III) – automation of a known process or manual activity) according to claim 1, wherein the arrangement area has a polygonal shape [mathematical concepts and/or “mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
[Claim 7] The method for automatically arranging parts on a CAD (well-understood, routine and conventional activity (MPEP 2144.04 (III) – automation of a known process or manual activity) according to claim 6, wherein the polygonal shape is defined by the boundary line during or after completion of arrangement of the part [mathematical concepts and/or “mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
[Claim 8] The method for automatically arranging parts on a CAD (well-understood, routine and conventional activity (MPEP 2144.04 (III) – automation of a known process or manual activity) according to claim 1, wherein the part boundary condition is automatically set from arrangement data of the part created in the past (well-understood, routine and conventional activity (MPEP 2144.04 (III) – automation of a known process or manual activity).
Claim 9: independent claim 9 recites limitations analogous in scope to those of independent claim 1. Therefore, similar analysis to claim 1 is applied to claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are allowable over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
TSAI et al (US Publication No. 2017/0161424 A1) discloses Abstract, designing a semiconductor device includes establishing boundary conditions for a layout of each cell of a plurality of cells, wherein each cell has a plurality of features, and boundary conditions are established based on a proximity of each feature to a cell boundary of a corresponding cell. The method includes determining whether the layout of each cell is colorable based on a number of masks used to manufacture a layer of the semiconductor device, a minimum spacing requirement for the plurality of features, and the established boundary conditions. The method includes forming a layout of the layer of the semiconductor device by abutting a first cell of the plurality of cells with a second cell of the plurality of cells. The method includes reporting the layout of the layer of the semiconductor device as colorable without analyzing the layout of the layer of the semiconductor device; [0021] In some embodiments, multiple cells are designed in operation 110. In some embodiments, each cell designed in operation 110 has a different function; par [0024] In operation 120a, boundary conditions are introduced based on a risk of a feature near a boundary of the cell being located within a G0 spacing of features in an abutting cell following design of the layer of the semiconductor device. A sensitivity region is defined within the cell based on G0 spacing of a process used to form the layer of the semiconductor device. The sensitivity region is used to define a risk factor for features which contact or overlap the sensitivity region. In some embodiments, the risk factors are determined based on an amount of overlap between the feature and the sensitivity region; [0025] In operation 120b, the n-patterning conflict analysis is performed on the cell which includes the boundary conditions. The n-patterning conflict analysis is used to reduce the risk that the features which overlap the sensitivity region in the cell will be within a G0 spacing of features in an abutting cell following formation of the layer of the semiconductor device; [0026] If operation 120b determines that the cell is not n-colorable, method 100 returns to operation 110 and the cell is modified. In some embodiments, the cell is modified based on instructions from the designer. In some embodiments, the cell is modified to change a location of at least one feature in the cell relative to a cell boundary. In some embodiments, the cell is modified to change a location of at least one feature in the cell relative to another feature in the cell; [0032] The sensitivity region extends around an entirety of the cell adjacent to the cell boundary. In some embodiments, a width of the sensitivity region is constant around the periphery of the cell. In some embodiments, a width of the sensitivity region varies within the cell based on a concentration of features within the cell or a manufacturing process used for forming the layer of the semiconductor device; [0033] The sensitivity region acts as a reference point for determining the risk factors. For example, a feature which does not contact or overlap with the sensitivity region has a risk factor of zero in some embodiments. A feature which contacts an edge of the sensitivity region, but does not overlap the sensitivity region has a risk factor of one in some embodiments. Features which overlap with the sensitivity region have a risk factor ranging from two to n, where n is the number of masks used to form the layer of the semiconductor device.
Kumashiro et al (US Publication No. 2007/0174807 A1) discloses Abstract, the OPC is applied only to the cell boundary portions after respective OPC-applied cells are arranged on the chip, so that a dimensional precision in vicinity of the cell boundaries can be ensured; [0023] According to this method, since the same block can be completed by one process a cell by dividing the layout data into cells in the OPC processing step and then applying the OPC to each cell, a processing time can be greatly reduced. Also, if the OPC is applied only to the block boundary portions after respective OPC-applied blocks are arranged on the chip, a dimensional precision such as a gate dimension in vicinity of the block boundary, or the like can be ensured; [0081] In the above embodiment 1, the frequently occurring boundary portions in the combination of the neighboring cell arrangements are selected; [0088] Therefore, in step 5004, a dimensional shrinkage is applied simply to the patterns whose cell boundary portions are thickened after the cells that underwent the OPC process in step 5003 are arranged in a chip. As a result, the high-speed process can be attained by simplifying the process while keeping the precision; [0089] In this manner, the after-OPC pattern in the cell boundary area becomes thicker than the optimal solution when the correction is applied on a single-cell basis. Therefore, the corrected shape that is close to the optimal solution can be calculated in a short TAT by causing the after-OPC pattern to shrink simply after the arrangement.
However, none of the cited prior art references of record fully anticipate or render obvious the independent claims in particular the limitation of: “a boundary line acquisition step for arranging a boundary line parallel to an area termination end line as a line representing a termination end of the arrangement area in the X- direction or the Y-direction and acquiring a boundary line boundary condition representing the plurality of parts arranged in two regions separated by the boundary line; a part arrangement step for comparing a placement requirement defined by the part boundary condition set for a part with available placement spaces defined by the boundary line boundary condition set for the boundary line arranged in the arrangement area and arranging the part when the placement requirement defined by the part boundary condition matches an available placement space defined by the boundary line boundary condition; a boundary line updating step for updating the boundary line and the boundary line boundary condition after arranging the part in the part arrangement step” in combination with the remaining steps recited in claims 1, and 9.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-8571. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571 272 3676. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
KIBROM K. GEBRESILASSIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2189
/KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189 08/25/2026
Prosecution Insights